Pages

Thursday, 12 February 2015

Notes from Public Meeting on 27th November 2014

Last night was very well attended and Paul
Zukowskyj gave a very informative slide presentation on the latest draft of
WHBC's Local Plan

The point of the meeting was to keep residents
informed of the progress of the Local Plan and the timeline that the council is
working to, this being:

Dec 11 - the CHPP will present the draft Local
Plan

Dec 17 - the CHPP will ratify the draft Local
Plan

Early January - the Local Plan will be
published for public consultation, and we may have 8 - 12 weeks to respond.

The North Mymms Parish Council, the North
Mymms District Green Belt Society, the Brookmans Park Residents Association
(and, I believe the Welham Green Residents Association and the Little Heath
Action Group) will continue to attend the CHPP meetings. We will all examine
the Local Plan in detail when it is finally published and issue
statements/guidance/recommendations at that point, for residents to use in the
consultation.

We do
not yet know which proposed sites will appear in the consultation, but it could
be all of those currently under consideration ie BrP1, BrP2, BrP4, BrP6, BrP7,
BrP9, BrP10, BrP12, BrP13, BrP14.

Most questions raised were about the
suitability/viability of the sites, so what follows is a precis of those. Note
that WHBC has already thought of ways to circumvent most grounds for objections
to developing the sites. Note also that full modelling will only take place
after the site(s) is/are chosen.

Q The land floods, so is
unsuitable for housing.

A The council expects the
developer to incorporate a drainage system in the new housing development. This
could be the underground storm water drainage tank mentioned before.

Q The roads are not up to
taking another possible 300 - 600 cars, and access to many of the sites is
minimal - how can Highways afford the changes necessary?

A Highways has done
some modelling, but the full-scale modelling will be done only after the
site(s) has/have been chosen in the consultation. WHBC expects the developer to
pay for this, and possibly a contribution to the new roads too.

Q The infrastructure
cannot support another 300 plus houses.

A When the site(s)
is/are chosen, the developer will have to demonstrate that they can plan for,
and pay for, adequate drainage, water, utilities etc

Q The schools are
not big enough

A There is almost
certainly going to be provision for new schools in developers' plans,

Q There will not be
enough medical provision, Potterells will be overwhelmed.

A There may be
additional provision in developers' plans, and this will be modelled after the
site(s) is/are chosen.

Q Has an
Environmental Impact Survey been commissioned.

A WHBC have already
taken into account information from the Environment Agency. More detailed work
will be done after the site(s) is/are chosen.

Q The sites
proposed are all Green Belt and the Government has said that it is committed to
protecting the Green Belt.

A The
Government has said that there should only be development on the Green Belt 'in
exceptional circumstances'. A requirement to build houses to meet 'an
objectively assessed housing need', may qualify as 'exceptional circumstances'.
WHBC has an 'objectively assessed housing need' of 12,500 new dwellings.

Paul Zukowskyj is calling on WHBC to challenge
the Government’s policy and urge them to consider a new Garden City in
Hertfordshire, outside the Green Belt. The LibDems have a petition on this on
their website which everybody is invited to sign if they are in favour: